With David Cameron
facing defeat in his attempt to prevent Mr Juncker being confirmed as
president of the European Commission, it can be disclosed that a series
of allegations about his alcohol consumption have been the subject of
top-level talks.

On Thursday, as Mr
Cameron...declared himself
“unapologetic” over his attempt to block the former leader of
Luxembourg....

Allegations have circulated around Brussels in recent years about Mr Juncker’s drinking.

One senior diplomatic source has said he “has cognac for breakfast”....

Concerns about Mr Juncker’s lifestyle have been raised in recent meetings of EU leaders.

Now, to withdraw, the president just needs to take an affirmative,
“We withdraw Obama’s signature.” He doesn’t have to go to the Senate
because we didn’t go to the Senate to have it ratified....So in summary, the Paris Accord is not a treaty, but yet it could end
up being enforced as one because of our own law called the treaty on
treaties, which simply says that if we announce support in principle,
that if we sign an ancillary document promising to do what we can, that
is the same thing as the Senate ratifying it with two-thirds of the
Senate voting....

They’re trying to say Trump
could actually gain some ground with people that don’t support him by
signing on to this ’cause it isn’t gonna hurt him. “It’s not gonna
bother his own fans because his voters are gonna understand it’s a
nothing burger. So Trump can really score some points with people that
oppose him by signing on to this thing and not harm and not break a
promise.”

Comment: Why is Trump making a big deal about announcing his "decision?" His 63 million voters thought he made his "decision" quite clear during the campaign. We're supposed to accept that after the election, everything's up for grabs again? If that's the case, let's cancel the results of the election and have a new vote. Dragging this issue out for months further humiliates his 63 million voters.

This dependency was caused by the US political classwhich in succeeding generations has never liked average Americans, was happy to hand out US taxpayer dollars like candy all over the world, has even been happy to "volunteer" American lives and limbs to fight and die in endless foreign wars. What has changed is Americans understand they can no longer bear this burden, nor should anyone. Time will tell if Trump himself retains this belief and acts accordingly.

Why is Germany or Europe only now thinking it's not a good idea to be dependent on struggling US taxpayers? Considering how dangerous Germany and Europe are today, how in the world does anyone at Der Spiegel have the spare time to be obsessed about a country across the Atlantic Ocean that as a result of being sold out to the bare walls by its political class, is beginning to see that serious problems exist in what remains of the United States? Mr. Brinkbäumer, you mention"experts and politicians focused on foreign policy"are in agony. This is their own fault. They chose to make a living as a parasite on the American people. They assumed they'd be part of a permanent political class--no matter who won elections, they'd still be in business. These people have done very well for several decades. What you only now perceive as a change in the US had been building among US voters for at least 15 years. We realized the entire US political class sold out our country to the bare walls and couldn't care less what we thought about it. Elections became meaningless--2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014--came and went and nothing changed. Voters no longer had the ability to effect change in the country:

Put another way, the US had been converted to a soft dictatorship without voter approval. In 2016, they planned to outsmart us again, whether flooding the field with ridiculous candidates funded by fat cats, or relying on "super delegates" to tip the scale for the corporate candidate. We had two choices. We could accept that we were now slaves, or we could vote for Donald Trump. Mr. Brinkbäumer, what would you have done given that choice? Your article makes no mention of 62,984,825 Trump votersnor what led them to their 2016 vote. Some consider Trump's beating the vicious Republican Establishment an even bigger achievement than beating the Democrat to win the presidency:

Mr. Brinkbäumer,assuming you didn't vote in the 2016 US election and weren't qualified to do so, how do you now envision going over the heads of 63 million American voters and removing our elected representative? Have you looked around at the living hell Europe has become?It's pompous attitudes of people like you that caused the election of Donald Trump.

Quote referenced above:

"Not quite two weeks ago, a number of experts and politicians focused on
foreign policy met in Washington at the invitation of the Munich
Security Conference. It wasn't difficult to sense the atmosphere of
chaos and agony that has descended upon the city."

Celebrating
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as the cornerstone of U.S.
foreign policy was an obligatory ritual for two generations of American
statesmen. As the decades passed however, mention of it and of “our
European allies” has come with decreasing conviction and increasing
embarrassment. Few dispute that, today, the alliance’s formalities are a
pretense likelier to get its members into trouble than to pull anyone
out of it. Civilizational changes have emptied it of substance.
Readjusting American strategy to take account of those changes makes far
more sense than talking about “revitalizing” or “rebuilding” an
alliance on bases that no longer exist.
American statesmen who treated NATO as something of an end in itself
erected it into a totem. They would have done well to recall George
Washington’s common sense teaching about alliances, namely that, by
nature, they are expedients for particular purposes in particular
situations. This means that the proper attitude to any alliance is to
keep a tight focus on the business for which it exists, while being
ready to dissolve it without illusion or sentiment, never mind rancor,
as situations change.
- See more at: http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/11/17/would-george-washington-mourn-nato/#sthash.KHcnZQz9.dpuf

8/7/2013, "Egypt dismisses US senators' call for releases," DW.DE"Two top US senators visiting Egypt have urged the release of detained
Muslim Brotherhood members. Egypt’s interim president described their
comments as "unacceptable" as foreign mediation efforts begin to be
questioned.

A mediation visit by the two Republican senators appeared to have fallen
short of its desired aim on Tuesday, with state newspaper al-Ahram
indicating that Cairo was beginning to tire of outside involvement.During their visit, the senators - John McCain and Lindsey Graham -
called for the release of detained members of the Muslim Brotherhood and
the beginning of a national dialogue to bring Egypt to democratic rule.The comments, calling the detainees "political prisoners"and referring
to the overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi - who was last year elected
to the post - as a "coup" were denounced by interim Egyptian President
Adly Mansour. In a brief statement, Mansour described the remarks as "unacceptable interference in internal politics"...Although the senators were asked to visit Egypt by US President Barack
Obama, they did not directly represent the White House, having found
themselves at odds with the White House over the response to last
month’s transfer of power. A description of the overthrow as a coup is
something that the Obama administration has so far avoided.'Failure' to be announced After the visit, the state-run al-Ahram newspaper said on Tuesday
thatCairo was preparingto announce "the failure of all US, European,
Qatari and UAE delegations in convincing the Brotherhood of a peaceful
solution to the current crisis."Al-Ahram also said the government - according to official sources - was
preparing to designate ongoing Muslim Brotherhood protests as
"non-peaceful." That distinction has been seen as a sign that the
government intends to end the protests by pro-Morsi protesters, if
necessary by force.Recent weeks have seen a flurry of diplomatic activity with US Deputy
Secretary of State William Burns,EU foreign policy head Catherine
Ashton and German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle among the visitors
to Cairo.EU envoy Bernardino Leon met Prime Minister Hazem al-Beblawi on Monday
after he and Burns met the day beforewith the Brotherhood's number two,
Khairat al-Shater, in prison. [EU's] Ashton last week met Morsi himself, at
the place where he was being detained."

Oct. 24, 2016, "France and Germany Turn to Coal," Institute for Energy Research"Many of France’s nuclear units are down for inspection. As a result,
coal and natural gas generation has more than doubled. Last month,
generation from fossil fuels was the highest in 32 years in France and
nuclear generation was the lowest since 1998. As a result, French
month-ahead power prices escalated to near the highest levels since
2009.

France is heavily dependent on nuclear power for its electricity
generation. It generated almost 80 percent of its electricity from
nuclear energy in 2015, followed by hydroelectric power that generated
about 10 percent. In 2015, fossil fuels represented only a 7.5 percent
share and renewable energy (excluding hydro) had a 6.1 percent share....But this, year, France’s nuclear regulator ordered safety checks on a
number of its reactors, and those safety checks are taking longer than
expected. France’s nuclear generation began dropping early this year and
took a major decline in April that has continued into September. Its
nuclear reactors produced 26.6 terawatt-hours
of electricity in September, the lowest amount since August 1998.

Since
April, generation from coal and natural gas increased to compensate for
the reactors off-line, and in September, they produced 4,132
gigawatt-hours, or 11 percent of the total.[i]

France has seven fewer reactors available than at the same time last
year.France’s nuclear regulator ordered safety checks on 18 of its 58
units to rule out potential anomalies on steam generators. Six reactors,
however, are expected to be back on-line this month.

France is also faced with the lowest hydropower
output in 10 years, which is exacerbating the tight supply situation.
Hydropower levels are down 25 percent so far this October compared to
last year.

The change in generation has caused prices to spike. The French
next-month contract is trading at a premium of 24.90 euros ($27.42) per
megawatt-hour to Germany. The price rose to a seven-year high of 68.15
euros ($74.82) per megawatt-hour on October 7. Day-ahead electricity
jumped as much as 18 percent to 77 euros ($84.54) per megawatt-hour–the
highest since April 2013.Germany

Unlike France, Germany is much more reliant on renewable energy and
fossil fuels for its electricity generation than on nuclear power.

That
is because Germany decided to retire its nuclear units and promote
renewable energy instead after the tsunami hit Japan’s nuclear reactors
in Fukushima. While Germany gets 27.3 percent of its generation from
non-hydroelectric renewable energy, it is also heavily dependent on coal
and natural gas for base-load power and to back up its intermittent
wind and solar power, generating over 50 percent of its power from
fossil fuels....Germany’s plan is to shutter all of its nuclear units by 2022 and to
have renewable energy provide 40 to 45 percent of its generation by 2025
and 80 percent by 2050[ii]—up
from 30 percent in 2025.

Germany’s coal-fired generation last year declined by just a half
percent and because its electricity demand remained essentially flat,
the relatively inexpensive coal-fired power not needed domestically was
exported–mostly to Austria, the Netherlands, France and Switzerland.[viii]
Germany’s plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions includes renewables
replacing coal as well as its nuclear power, but its coal-fired
generating industry refuses to go away.

Despite the large increase in solar and wind power, Germany is likely
to miss its 2020 target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels.[ix]In fact, its carbon dioxide emissions increased last year by 0.8 percent.[x]

Forget everything I said in my post yesterday
about Trump’s “average” admissions. If they do as they are now saying
they will, Donald Trump will be responsible for one of six highest
resettlement years since 9/11 [2001].***

Manchester here we come!

Here is the headline (Hat tip: Julia). Emphasis mine:

[New York Times] "U.S. Quietly Lifts Limit on Number of Refugees Allowed In"

WASHINGTON — "Despite repeated
efforts by President Trump to curtail refugee resettlements, the State
Department this week quietly liftedthe department’s restriction on the
number of refugees allowed to enter the United States.

The result could be a near
doubling of refugees entering the country, from about 830 people a week
in the first three weeks of this month to well over 1,500 people per
week by next month, according to refugee advocates. Tens of thousands of refugees are waiting to come to the United States.

The State Department’s decision was conveyed in an email on Thursday to the private agencies
in countries around the world that help refugees manage the nearly
two-year application process needed to enter the United States.

In her email, Jennifer L. Smith, a
department official, wrote that the refugee groups could begin bringing
people to the United States “unconstrained by the weekly quotas that
were in place.” [….]

“This is long overdue, but we’re very
happy,” said Mark Hetfield, president and chief executive of HIAS, an
immigrant aid society."

Bottomline is that it appears thatthe REPUBLICAN
Congress (never forget they want to keep big business donors happy by
providing a steady supply of cheap labor) appropriated gobs of money for
refugee resettlement!

"Go here to see what the LA Times is reporting about the stunning reversal on Thursday by the Trump State Department on refugee admissions where we learned that by
September 30th we could see 70,000 refugees admitted to the US, in a
year Trump initially said we would see a MORATORIUM. 70,000 is a number
higher than five of Obama’s eight years!

Be sure to take note that it is Congress that is shoving money (your
money) for refugeesdown the throats of the Administration. I contend
that the Administration has the power (but no will!) to reject it and
tell Congress to rescind it (but that is a story for another day).

This is the bit of the LA Timesstory I wanted you to see. The refugee resettlement contractors are complaining that the “pipeline” abroad has been so severely interrupted that they might not get even 50,000 in FY18. Only urgent cases are being interviewed! Isn’t that what should be done? Why are US taxpayers responsible for non-urgent cases?...

Congress is never going to review, in any serious way, the program
and change it significantly without leadership from the White House.

What can the White House do? The White House could have continued on
its earlier course. A MORATORIUM placed on the program would be a strong
incentive for Congress to finally, after 35 years, review the original
law and scrap or re-write it.

(g) It is the policy of the executive
branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State
and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining
the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to
be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine
the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local
jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining
the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and
shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

It
is not just Mr Monti. The European Central Bank, another crucial
player in the sovereign debt drama, is under ex-Goldman management, and the investment bank's alumni hold sway in the corridors of power in almost every European nation, as they have done in the US throughoutthe financial crisis. Until
Wednesday, the International Monetary Fund's European division was
also run by a Goldman man, Antonio Borges, who just resigned for
personal reasons.

Even before the upheaval in Italy, there was no sign of Goldman Sachs living down its nickname as "the Vampire Squid", and now thatits tentacles reach to the top of the eurozone,
sceptical voices are raising questions over its influence. The
political decisions taken in the coming weeks will determine if the
eurozone can and will pay its debts – and Goldman's interests are intricately tied up with the answer to that question.

Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary Fund economist, in his book 13 Bankers, argued that Goldman Sachs and the other large banks had become so close to governmentin the run-up to the financial crisis that the US was effectively an oligarchy. At least European politicians aren't "bought and paid for" by corporations, as in the US, he says.
"Instead what you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the
policy elite and the bankers, a shared set of goals and mutual
reinforcement of illusions."

This is The Goldman Sachs Project. Put simply, it is to hug governments close.
Every business wants to advance its interests with the regulators
that can stymie them and the politicians who can give them a tax
break, butthis is no mere lobbying effort.
Goldman is there to provide advice for governments and to provide
financing, to send its people into public service and to dangle
lucrative jobs in front of people coming out of government. The Project
is to create such a deep exchange of peopleand ideas and money that it is impossible to tell the difference between the public interest and the Goldman Sachs interest.

Mr Monti is one of Italy's most eminent economists, and he spent most
of his career in academia and thinktankery, but it was when Mr
Berlusconi appointed him to the European Commission in 1995 that Goldman
Sachs started to get interested in him. First as commissioner for the
internal market, and then especially as commissioner for competition, he
has made decisions that could make or break the takeover and merger
deals that Goldman's bankers were working on or providing the funding
for. Mr Monti also later chaired the Italian Treasury's committee on the
banking and financial system, which set the country's financial
policies.

With these connections, it was natural for Goldman to
invite him to join its board of international advisers.The bank's two
dozen-strong international advisers act as informal lobbyistsfor its
interests with the politicians that regulate its work. Other advisers
include Otmar Issing who, as a board member of the German Bundesbank and
then the European Central Bank, was one of the architects of the euro.

Perhaps
the most prominent ex-politician inside the bank is Peter Sutherland,
Attorney General of Ireland in the 1980s and another former EU
Competition Commissioner. He is now non-executive chairman of Goldman's
UK-based broker-dealer arm, Goldman Sachs International, and until its
collapse and nationalisation he was also a non-executive director of
Royal Bank of Scotland. He has been a prominent voice within Ireland on
its bailout by the EU, arguing that the terms of emergency loans should
be eased, so as not to exacerbate the country's financial woes. The EU
agreed to cut Ireland's interest rate this summer.

Picking up
well-connected policymakers on their way out of government is only one
half of the Project, sending Goldman alumni into government is the other
half. Like Mr Monti, Mario Draghi, who took over as President of the
ECB on 1 November, has been in and out of government and in and out of
Goldman. He was a member of the World Bank and managing director of the
Italian Treasury before spending three years as managing director of
Goldman Sachs International between 2002 and 2005 – only to return to
government as president of the Italian central bank.

Mr Draghi has
been dogged by controversy over the accounting tricks conducted by
Italy and other nations on the eurozone periphery as they tried to
squeeze into the single currency a decade ago. By using complex
derivatives, Italy and Greece were able to slim down the apparent size
of their government debt, which euro rules mandated shouldn't be above
60 per cent of the size of the economy. And the brains behind several of
those derivatives were the men and women of Goldman Sachs....

In one deal, Goldman channelled $1bn of funding to
the Greek government in 2002 in a transaction called a cross-currency
swap. On the other side of the deal, working in the National Bank of
Greece, was Petros Christodoulou, who had begun his career at Goldman,
and who has been promoted now to head the office managing government
Greek debt....

So certain is the
financial elite that the banks will be bailed out, that some are placing
bet-the-company wagers on just such an outcome. Jon Corzine, a former
chief executive of Goldman Sachs, returned to Wall Street last year
after almost a decade in politics and took control of a historic firm
called MF Global. He placed a $6bn bet with the firm's money that
Italian government bonds will not default.

When the bet was
revealed last month, clients and trading partners decided it was too
risky to do business with MF Global and the firm collapsed within days.
It was one of the ten biggest bankruptcies in US history....This is the
rationale for the bailouts and the austerity, the reason we are getting
more Goldman, not less. The alternative is a second financial crisis, a
second economic collapse."...